| From: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Small fix for _equalValue() |
| Date: | 2002-03-09 23:43:16 |
| Message-ID: | 3C8A9E14.D6A7E5EC@fourpalms.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
...
> That's because I already committed the other changes he pointed out ;-).
> But yeah, we seem to be copy-clean again.
I had thought that you objected to the guard code in the copy functions
since nodes should not have had the content they did. And afaik I have
now fixed the upstream problems with the content.
Had you changed you mind about the necessity for the guard code? Why did
those patches get applied if the only feedback in the thread was that
the problem did not lie there?
Or are we talking about two different parts of the patch submission? I'm
a bit confused as to the current state of the code tree...
- Thomas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-09 23:49:20 | Re: Rationalizing EXPLAIN VERBOSE output |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-09 23:43:08 | Re: Adding qualification conditions to EXPLAIN output |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-09 23:58:56 | Re: [PATCHES] Small fix for _equalValue() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-09 22:46:28 | Re: Small fix for _equalValue() |